Stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans Research Articles

Comparing HEDIS performance of Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans with other coverage types for dually eligible people.

People eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid coverage ("dually eligible individuals") have lower levels of income and assets and often higher health care needs and costs than those eligible for Medicare but not Medicaid coverage. Their 3 most common Medicare coverage options are Medicare Advantage (MA) Dual Eligible Special Needs Plans (D-SNPs), non-D-SNP MA plans, and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare with a stand-alone prescription drug plan. No prior study has examined clinical quality of care for dually eligible individuals across these 3 coverage types. To fill that void, we used logistic regression to compare these coverage types on 6 HEDIS measures of clinical quality of care that were available for both MA and FFS (constructed from claims files). D-SNPs and non-D-SNP MA plans significantly outperformed FFS for all 6 measures for dually eligible individuals, by approximately 5 percentage points for 2 measures and by 18-34 percentage points for the other 4 measures. For the 4 measures with the greatest advantage over FFS, performance was 3-8 percentage points higher in D-SNPs than in non-D-SNP MA plans.

Comparison of Out-of-Pocket Spending on Ultra-Expensive Drugs in Medicare Part D vs Commercial Insurance

Little is known about how out-of-pocket burden differs between Medicare and commercial insurance for ultra-expensive drugs. To investigate out-of-pocket spending for ultra-expensive drugs in the Medicare Part D program vs commercial insurance. This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study of individuals using ultra-expensive drugs included in a 20% nationally random sample of prescription drug claims from Medicare Part D and individuals aged 45 to 64 years using ultra-expensive drugs included in a large national convenience sample of outpatient pharmaceutical claims from commercial insurance plans. Claims data from 2013 through 2019 were used, and data were analyzed in February 2023. Claims-weighted mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug by insurance type, plan, and age. In 2019, 37 324 and 24 159 individuals using ultra-expensive drugs were identified in the 20% Part D and commercial samples, respectively (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [11.7] years; 54.9% female). A statistically significant higher share of commercial enrollees vs Part D beneficiaries were female (61.0% vs 51.0%; P < .001), and a statistically significantly lower share were using 3 or more branded medications (28.7% vs 42.6%; P < .001). Mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4478 in Part D (median [IQR], $4169 [$3369-$5947]) compared with $1821 for commercial (median [IQR], $1272 [$703-$1924]); these differences were statistically significant every year. Differences in out-of-pocket spending comparing commercial enrollees aged 60 to 64 years and Part D beneficiaries aged 65 to 69 years exhibited similar magnitudes and trends. By plan, mean out-of-pocket spending per beneficiary per drug in 2019 was $4301 (median [IQR], $4131 [$3000-$6048]) in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, $4575 (median [IQR], $4190 [$3305-$5799]) in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), $1208 (median [IQR], $752 [$317-$1240]) in health maintenance organization plans, $1569 (median [IQR], $838 [$481-$1472]) in preferred provider organization plans, and $4077 (median [IQR], $2882 [$1075-$4226]) in high-deductible health plans. There were no statistically significant differences between MAPD plans and stand-alone PDPs in any study year. Mean out-of-pocket spending was statistically significantly higher in MAPD plans compared with health maintenance organization plans and in stand-alone PDPs compared with preferred provider organization plans in each study year. This cohort study demonstrated that the $2000 out-of-pocket cap included in the Inflation Reduction Act may substantially moderate the potential increase in spending faced by individuals who use ultra-expensive drugs when moving from commercial insurance to Part D coverage.

Part D beneficiaries' incentives and responses under preferred pharmacy networks.

The share of Medicare stand-alone prescription drug plans with a preferred pharmacy network has grown from less than 9% in 2011 to 98% in 2021. This article assesses the financial incentives that such networks created for unsubsidized and subsidized beneficiaries and their pharmacy switching. We analyzed prescription drug claims data for a nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 through 2016. We evaluated the financial incentives for using preferred pharmacies by simulating unsubsidized and subsidized beneficiaries' annual out-of-pocket spending differentials between using nonpreferred and preferred pharmacies for all their prescriptions. We then compared beneficiaries' use of pharmacies before and after their plans adopted preferred networks. We also examined the amount of money that beneficiaries left on the table under such networks, based on their pharmacy use. Unsubsidized beneficiaries faced substantial incentives-on average, $147 annually in out-of-pocket spending-and moderately switched toward preferred pharmacies, whereas subsidized beneficiaries were insulated from the incentives and demonstrated little switching. Among those who continued to mainly use nonpreferred pharmacies (half of the unsubsidized and about two-thirds of the subsidized), on average, the unsubsidized paid more out of pocket ($94) relative to if they had used preferred pharmacies, whereas Medicare bore the extra spending ($170) for the subsidized through cost-sharing subsidies. Preferred networks have important implications for beneficiaries' out-of-pocket spending and the low-income subsidy program. Further research is needed about the impact on the quality of beneficiaries' decision-making and cost savings to fully evaluate preferred networks.

Effects of an out-of-pocket maximum in Medicare Part D.

Three different out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums in Medicare Part D have been proposed: $2000 by the House of Representatives, $3100 by the Senate Finance Committee, and the beginning of catastrophic coverage by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. However, little is known about how beneficiaries would be affected. We estimated multivariate linear regression models to determine which beneficiary characteristics were associated with the greatest savings under each proposed OOP maximum and simulated a potential behavioral response by beneficiaries. Using Part D 2017 claims data for beneficiaries in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MA-PD) plans, we estimated the number of beneficiaries affected, their demographic characteristics, and their drug utilization patterns. We then simulated a potential behavioral response by beneficiaries. Under the $2000 OOP proposed threshold, only 7% of PDP and 4% of MA-PD plan beneficiaries would have spending high enough to reach the OOP maximum. Annual mean (SD) savings would be $1301 ($1849) for PDP beneficiaries and $1363 ($1888) for MA-PD plan beneficiaries, concentrated among beneficiaries taking specialty drugs. As the threshold increases, fewer beneficiaries would accrue savings, but savings would increase. For the highest proposed OOP maximum, mean (SD) savings would be $2720 ($3465) and $2473 ($2805) for PDP and MA-PD plan beneficiaries, respectively. In our simulations, we estimated that the number of beneficiaries affected by an OOP maximum could increase by 2% to 11%, depending on the magnitude of response, but changes in savings would be minimal. As currently drafted, proposed OOP maximums would reduce OOP spending for a small population of Part D beneficiaries, with savings concentrated among beneficiaries with the very highest costs who are taking specialty medications.

Comparison of oral anticoagulation use and adherence among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans vs Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans.

BACKGROUND: For atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, oral anticoagulants (OACs) can reduce the risk of stroke by 60%; however, nearly 50% of patients recommended to receive OACs do not receive therapy. Integrated insurers that cover pharmacy and medical benefits may be incentivized to improve OAC use and adherence because they benefit from offsets in medical costs associated with prevented strokes. OBJECTIVE: To compare OAC use and adherence between AF patients enrolled in Medicare stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs), which only cover pharmacy benefits, and those enrolled in Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MAPD) plans, which cover medical and pharmacy benefits. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study, conducted using 2014-2016 Medicare claims data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and a large regional health plan in Pennsylvania. Primary outcomes included OAC use and OAC adherence. OAC use was measured as filling at least 1 prescription for an OAC after AF diagnosis. OAC adherence was defined as having greater than or equal to 80% of days covered with an OAC. We constructed conditional logistic regression models in propensity score-matched samples to test the association between enrollment in PDPs or MAPD plans and outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2,551 AF patients enrolled in PDPs and 4,502 in MAPD plans before propensity score matching. The propensity score-matched sample included 2,537 patients in each group. OAC use was higher among MAPD beneficiaries (74%-76%) compared with PDP beneficiaries (70%; P < 0.001), and 41%-42% of MAPD beneficiaries were adherent to OACs, compared with 34% of PDP beneficiaries (P < 0.001). In adjusted analyses among propensity score-matched samples, PDP enrollment was associated with lower odds of OAC use (OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.56-0.81) and adherence (OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.59-0.78) compared with MAPD enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: AF patients enrolled in MAPD plans were more likely to use and adhere to OACs compared with PDP enrollees. These results may reflect the financial incentives of MAPD plans to improve guideline-recommended OAC use, since MAPD insurers bear the risk of pharmacy and medical costs and thus may benefit from cost savings associated with averted stroke events. As efforts to improve use and adherence of OACs in AF patients increase, focus should be given to how insurance benefit designs can affect medication use. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding supported this study. Hernandez has received personal fees from BMS and Pfizer, unrelated to this study. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Patient and Payer Incentives to Use Patented Brand-Name Drugs vs Authorized Generic Drugs in Medicare Part D

In response to scrutiny over high drug prices, manufacturers of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents for treating hepatitis C have recently introduced authorized generic alternatives to their patented brand-name products. These authorized generic drugs have list prices at least 50% lower than the list price of the brand-name drugs, which should result in savings to patients. However, it is unclear whether these authorized generic drugs are offered on Medicare Part D formularies because they may not provide savings to plans or Medicare. To assess Medicare Part D formulary coverage for 4 brand-name formulations of insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents and their authorized generic formulations. This cross-sectional study used Medicare Prescription Drug Plan Formulary and Pricing Information Files from quarter 3 of 2020 and Medicare Part D plan enrollment for September 2020. Four patented brand-name drugs (sofosbuvir and velpatasvir fixed-dose combination tablets [Epclusa], ledipasvir and sofosbuvir tablets [Harvoni], insulin lispro [Humalog], and insulin aspart [Novolog]) and their authorized generic formulations for all Part D stand-alone prescription drug plans (n = 959) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (n = 3148) were studied. Beneficiary-weighted formulary coverage of brand-name and authorized generic products; beneficiary out-of-pocket costs; and prerebate plan, manufacturer, and Medicare spending on brand-name and authorized generic products. In quarter 3 of 2020, 97% of beneficiaries were in plans that covered brand-name drugs only or both brand-name and authorized generic drugs; approximately 3% were in plans that covered authorized generic drugs only. Observed authorized generic drug list prices were 67%, 62%, and 50% lower than list prices for Epclusa, Harvoni, and each brand-name insulin product, respectively. Medicare beneficiaries using authorized generic drugs could save $270 per year for 12 vials of Humalog and $2974 for a full course of Harvoni. Plans, however, have limited incentives to encourage authorized generic drug use because rebates for brands likely exceed savings available with authorized generic drugs, particularly for beneficiaries with spending that reaches the Medicare Part D coverage gap. The results of this cross-sectional study suggest that authorized generic drugs for insulin and direct-acting antiviral agents may lower out-of-pocket spending for patients but are unlikely to provide savings for Part D plans or Medicare. Instead, these drugs allow manufacturers to offer products at a lower list price without materially lowering net prices or profits.

Trends in Medicare Part D coverage of generics with equivalent brand-name drugs.

To evaluate whether increased placement of generic drugs on higher cost-sharing tiers in Medicare Part D is associated with coverage of multisource brand-name drugs, plan type, or product characteristics. Descriptive study of Medicare Prescription Drug Formulary Files. We analyzed plan coverage and tiering of brand-name drugs and matched generics from 2013-2019. We compared tiering changes and estimated out-of-pocket spending by tier for all Part D plans and by plan type (Medicare Advantage prescription drug [MA-PD] vs stand-alone prescription drug plan [PDP]) for covered generic drugs. Finally, we identified the generic products commonly placed on higher tiers in 2019 and categorized them based on clinical characteristics. Across 5,220,488 plan-product combinations in 2019, 76.4% of generic drug observations reflected coverage on Part D plan formularies, compared with only 12.1% of brand-name drugs. Between 2013 and 2019, the share of observations reflecting covered generics on lower tiers decreased from 76.8% to 53.9%, whereas the share on higher tiers increased from 7.5% to 28.0%. MA-PD plans were more likely than PDPs to place generic drugs on lower tiers, even among plan sponsors offering both plan types. Despite these trends, higher tier placement does not appear to be related to more generous coverage of brand-name products. Instead, in 2019, 70% of high-tier generics had multiple formulations, required heightened clinical monitoring, or had head-to-head treatment options available. Although Part D plans have increasingly placed covered generic drugs on higher formulary tiers over time, this may be partly explained by a drug's clinical profile and availability of substitutes rather than preferred brand-name drug coverage.

Association of low-income subsidy, medicaid dual eligibility, and disability status with high-risk medication use among Medicare Part D beneficiaries.

Low-income subsidy/dual eligibility (LIS/DE) status and disability status may be associated with high-risk medication (HRM) use but are not usually accounted for in medication-use quality measures. To examine the association of: 1) LIS/DE status and HRM use; and 2) disability status and HRM use, while controlling for both health plan level effects and patient characteristics for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans (MA-PD) and stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans (PDP). This retrospective cross-sectional study used 2013 Medicare data to determine if LIS/DE status and disability status were independently associated with HRM use (using the Pharmacy Quality Alliance HRM measure) in MA-PDs and PDPs. Multivariable generalized linear mixed models assessed the association of LIS/DE and HRM use, and disability and HRM use, after adjusting for health plan effect and patient-level confounders for MA-PD and PDP beneficiaries. Of 520,019MA-PD beneficiaries, 88,693 (17.1%) were LIS/DE and 48,997 (9.4%) were disabled. Of 881,264 PDP beneficiaries, 213,096 (24.2%) were LIS/DE, and 83,593 (9.5%) were disabled. LIS/DE beneficiaries had a higher percent of HRM users compared to non-LIS/DE MA-PD (13.3% vs. 9.7%, p<0.001) and PDP (17.1% vs. 13.2%, p<0.001) beneficiaries. Disabled beneficiaries had a higher percent of HRM users compared to non-disabled MA-PD (17.0% vs. 9.6%, p<0.001) and PDP (22.9% vs. 13.2%, p<0.001) beneficiaries. Multivariable analyses showed LIS/DE (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=1.07; 95% CI=1.04, 1.10) and disability (AOR=1.38; 95% CI=1.34, 1.42) were associated with HRM use among MA-PD and PDP beneficiaries (LIS/DE AOR=1.14; 95% CI=1.12, 1.16; disability AOR=1.37; 95% CI=1.34, 1.40). The association of LIS/DE and disability with higher HRM use in both MA-PD and PDP beneficiaries, when controlling for health plan effects and patient characteristics, suggests these factors should be considered when comparing health plan performance on HRM measures.

Variability of COPD inhaler coverage in Medicare Part D

Stand-alone prescription drug plans (S-PDPs) and Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MA-PD) plans are incentivized to cover outpatient medications differently. This could affect the coverage of inhalers that prevent costly exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), with impacts for the Medicare program and its beneficiaries. This study compared the coverage of guideline-recommended COPD inhalers between S-PDPs and MA-PD plans. A cross-sectional analysis of the formularies for all 689 S-PDPs and 2578 MA-PD plans offered in 2017. We assessed each prescription drug plan's coverage of inhalers in 6 therapeutic categories recommended by the 2017 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) report and compared the use of prior authorization, step therapy, and coinsurance between S-PDPs and MA-PD plans. In 2017, all S-PDPs and MA-PD plans covered at least 1 inhaler from each GOLD therapeutic category, except for long-acting β agonist/long-acting muscarinic antagonist combination inhalers. S-PDPs were more likely to require coinsurance for inhalers across all therapeutic categories, whereas MA-PD plans required prior authorization more frequently for 3 of the 6 therapeutic categories. S-PDPs required coinsurance more frequently than MA-PD plans for inhalers that treat mild (20.8% vs 11.4%; P < .001), moderate (40.0 vs 13.2%; P < .001), and severe (45.4% vs 11.0%; P < .001) disease. Medicare Part D S-PDPs are more likely than MA-PD plans to require coinsurance for outpatient COPD inhalers, especially for severe disease. This likely reflects their different financial incentives and is an important consideration for providers and policy makers aiming to improve outpatient COPD management.

Projected 30-day out-of-pocket and total spending on pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy under Medicare Part D.

401 Background: Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) can reduce symptoms of indigestion and improve nutrition in patients with exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. PERT is under-prescribed, and this may be related to actual costs and prescriber sensitivity to these costs. Thus, we aimed to assess PERT costs. Methods: We used Medicare Part D formulary and pricing files for the first quarter of 2020 to conduct a patient-level modeling study to describe point-of-sale and out-of-pocket costs for each PERT formulation among Part D stand-alone and Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans. We calculated costs across nationwide plans under three scenarios: (1) standard benefit design ($435 deductible and 25% coinsurance after the deductible is met); (2) 25% coinsurance (for fills after the deductible and in the coverage gap until the patient spends $6,350 out-of-pocket); and (3) 5% coinsurance (once catastrophic coverage is reached). PERT doses are identified by the lipase content per capsule (in United States Pharmacopeia, USP, units). We calculated the number of units for each PERT formulation/ dose form that would provide optimally dosed PERT for the average US adult (250,000 USP units of lipase per day), based on guidelines and consensus. We first calculated costs for a single unit of PERT. Next, we calculated the number of units needed daily for each formulation/ dose form to provide optimally dosed PERT, and multiplied it by 30 to generate 30-day requirements and costs. Results: Across 3,974 plans nationwide, five PERT formulations in seventeen different doses were covered by Medicare plans in 2020. The range of lipase content in a single unit ranged from 3,000 to 40,000 USP units, and the per-unit list price ranged from $1.44 to $13.89. The point-of-sale price for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT ranged from $2,109 to $4,840. For patients, the expected out-of-pocket costs for a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT averaged $999 across formulations (range, $853 to $1536) for those paying a deductible and coinsurance, $673 (range, $527 to $1210) for fills made after meeting the deductible until reaching catastrophic coverage, and $135 (range, $105 to $242) after reaching catastrophic coverage. Conclusions: In this analysis of 2020 Medicare Part D plans, the estimated out-of-pocket cost for just a 30-day supply of optimally dosed PERT was high— at least $100 in the catastrophic phase and approximately $1,000 in the initial phase. In the setting of pancreas cancer, already associated with heavy symptom burden and distress, the financial burden from a supportive care intervention (such as PERT) has been underappreciated. These costs may serve as a barrier to Medicare beneficiary drug access and contribute to financial toxicity.

Biosimilar formulary placement in Medicare Part D prescription drug plans: A case study of infliximab.

Biosimilars can generate competition and provide cost savings over reference biologics for the Medicare program and beneficiaries. The extent to which these benefits can be realized in the Medicare Part D program depends on how biosimilars and biologics are placed in the formulary. We conducted a study to examine Medicare formulary placement of the first biologic to have 2 biosimilars on the market-infliximab and its biosimilars infliximab-dyyb and infliximab-abda. All standalone and Medicare Advantage (MA) prescription drug plans (PDPs) offered in Medicare Part D were examined between September 2016 (ie, at the end of the last quarter before the launch of the first infliximab biosimilar) and September 2018, at which time a second biosimilar had been on the market for about 14 months. When PDPs covered both the reference biologic and a biosimilar, we compared the cost-sharing tier and the frequency of prior authorization and step therapy requirements for each drug. Nearly all PDPs covered infliximab throughout the study period. By September 2018, 31.7% of MA plans and 14.9% of standalone PDPs were covering a biosimilar on the market. Nearly all plans that covered a biosimilar also covered the reference product. Most plans (98% of standalone PDPs and 89% of MA plans) had placed prior authorization restrictions on both the biologic and the biosimilar. All plans covering both products placed them in the same cost-sharing tier. No plan required step therapy for either product. Formulary placement of infliximab biologic and biosimilars in Medicare Part D is not optimized to generate cost savings for the Medicare program and beneficiaries, whose cost sharing is often based on the drug's list price. The Medicare program should provide incentives for PDPs to expand biosimilar coverage.

Variation in generic dispensing rates in Medicare Part D.

The use of generics in Medicare Part D generates cost savings for plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and the federal government. However, there is considerable variation in generic use across plans, even within a therapeutic class. Our objective is to understand the extent of variation in generic use in Part D and to understand factors associated with generic use. We used an observational study design using Medicare Part D claims from 2006 to 2016. We used descriptive statistics and regression analysis to examine the variation in generic and brand use across plans and the extent to which patient, plan, and area characteristics are associated with the choice of medication within a therapeutic class. Although generic use has increased markedly over time in Part D, substantial variation across plans persists in a number of common therapeutic classes. Beneficiary characteristics such as gender and health status are associated with higher/lower generic use, as are plan characteristics such as plan type (stand-alone prescription drug plan or Medicare Advantage), premium, and parent company. Because we cannot study the impact of brand-name drug rebates on generic use, we can study the variation in generic use across Part D plans as an indirect way to assess pharmacy benefit manager and plan incentives. We find circumstantial evidence that, in certain classes, rebates may play a role in influencing brand over generic use, although the exact relationship is unknowable given the proprietary nature of rebates.

Geographic Variation in the Prevalence of High-Risk Medication Use Among Medicare Part D Beneficiaries by Hospital Referral Region.

Understanding geographic patterns of high-risk medication (HRM) prescribed and dispensed among older adults may help the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and their partners develop and tailor prevention strategies. To compare the geographic variation in the prevalence of HRM use among Medicare Part D beneficiaries from 2011 to 2013, for Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MA-PD) plans and stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans (PDPs). This retrospective study used the data of a 5% national Medicare sample (2011-2013). Beneficiaries were included in the study if they were aged ≥ 65 years, continuously enrolled in MA-PDs or PDPs (~1.3 million each year), and had ≥ 2 prescriptions for the same HRM (e.g., amitriptyline) prescribed and dispensed during the year based on the Pharmacy Quality Alliance's (PQA) quality measures for HRM use. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted annual HRM use rates (i.e., adjusted predictions, average marginal predictions, or model-adjusted risk) across 306 Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care hospital referral regions (HRRs), controlling for sociodemographic, health-status, and access-to-care factors. Among eligible beneficiaries each year (1,161,076 in 2011, 1,237,653 in 2012, and 1,402,861 in 2013), nearly 40% were enrolled in MA-PD plans, whereas the remaining 60% were in PDP plans. The adjusted prevalence of HRM use significantly decreased among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in MA-PD (13.1%-8.4%, P < 0.001) and PDP (16.2%-12.2%, P < 0.001) plans from 2011 to 2013. For MA-PD and PDP beneficiaries, HRM users were more likely to be (all P < 0.001) the following: female (MA-PD: 70.4% vs. 59.9%; PDP: 72.8% vs. 62.5%); White (MA-PD: 84.6% vs. 81.4%; PDP: 86.6% vs. 85.3%); with low-income subsidy or dual eligibility for Medicaid (MA-PD: 22.3% vs. 16.6%; PDP: 29.2% vs. 23.3%); and disabled (MA-PD: 15.6% vs. 8.7%; PDP: 15.4% vs. 8.5%) compared with non-HRM users in 2013. In 2013, significant geographic variation existed, with the ratios of 75th-25th percentiles of HRM use rates across HRRs as 1.42 for MA-PDs and 1.31 for PDPs. For MA-PDs, the top 5 HRRs with the highest HRM use rates in 2013 were Casper, WY (20.4%), Waco, TX (16.7%), Lubbock, TX (15.7%), Santa Barbara, CA (15.2%), and Temple, TX (15.1%); for PDPs, they were Lawton, OK (18.8%), Alexandria, LA (18.8%), Lake Charles, LA (18.6%), Oklahoma City, OK (18.0%), and Slidell, LA (18.0%). Substantial geographic variation exists in the prevalence of HRM use among older adults in Medicare, regardless of prescription drug plan. Areas with high prevalence of HRM use may benefit from targeted interventions (e.g., medication therapy management monitoring or alternative medication substitutions) to prevent potential adverse consequences. No outside funding supported this study. The authors have nothing to disclose. This study was presented as a poster at the International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Asia Pacific Meeting; September 8-11, 2018; Tokyo, Japan.

PNS111 HEALTH PLAN PERFORMANCE ON HIGH-RISK MEDICATION USE AMONG MEDICARE PART D BENEFICIARIES: IMPACT OF RISK ADJUSTMENT

Current Medicare health plan performance measures do not consider variations of patient characteristics within health plans, potentially leading to incorrect performance evaluations. This study examined the relationship between patient characteristics and high-risk medication (HRM) use and the impact of risk adjustment on HRM use measures among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan (MA-PD) and stand-alone Prescription Drug Plan (PDP) beneficiaries. This retrospective cross-sectional study used a 5% national sample of 2013 Medicare claims. Two groups of beneficiaries aged ≥65 years, continuously enrolled in MA-PD or PDP, and with ≥2 prescriptions for the same HRM (defined by Pharmacy Quality Alliance) were identified. First, we calculated unadjusted performance scores as a proportion of HRM users in each health plan. Second, we identified HRM use risk factors using multivariable logistic regression models for MA-PD and PDP. Third, we developed risk-adjustment scores using generalized linear mixed models to adjust for identified risk factors in specific plans within MA-PDs and PDPs. Agreement between unadjusted and adjusted scores was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa to demonstrate the effect of risk adjustment. This study included 520,019 MA-PD and 881,264 PDP beneficiaries (mean age=74.7±7.3 versus 75.6±7.8 years; females=61% versus 64%; white=81.7% versus 85.5%) enrolled in 474 MA-PD and 60 PDP contracts. In adjusted analyses, HRM users in MA-PDs were more likely to be younger (OR=0.981, 95%CI=0.980-0.983); women (OR=1.545, 95%CI=1.514-1.576); eligible for low-income subsidy (OR=1.086, 95%CI=1.057-1.115); disabled (OR=1.380, 95%CI=1.342-1.420); seeing multiple prescribers (OR=1.076, 95%CI=1.072-1.081); using multiple pharmacies (OR=1.092, 95%CI=1.083-1.102); and higher average modified RxRisk-V index (OR=1.176, 95%CI=1.171-1.181) than non-HRM users. PDP results were similar. Unadjusted scores had low levels of agreement (Cohen’s kappa <0.7) with risk-adjusted scores. This study suggests risk adjustment influences health plan performance evaluation. Thus, risk adjustment of HRM performance is recommended to ensure health plans are not penalized due to their beneficiaries’ characteristics.

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.<br/> DESIGN: Pooled cross-sectional study.<br/> 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.<br/> PARTICIPANTS: Female Medicare Part D enrollees 70 years of age and older with osteoporosis or prior hip fracture.<br/> INTERVENTIONS: NA.<br/> MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Use of bisphosphonates, calcitonin, teriparatide, and raloxifene was tracked by residential status over the three-year period.<br/> 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.<br/> 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.

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.<br/> DESIGN: Pooled cross-sectional study.<br/> 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.<br/> PARTICIPANTS: Female Medicare Part D enrollees 70 years of age and older with osteoporosis or prior hip fracture.<br/> INTERVENTIONS: NA.<br/> MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Use of bisphosphonates, calcitonin, teriparatide, and raloxifene was tracked by residential status over the three-year period.<br/> 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.<br/> 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.

PHP19 - Geographic Variation of High-Risk Medication Use Among Medicare Beneficiaries in the United States

Understanding geographic patterns of high-risk medication (HRM) use among older adults may help the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and their partners develop and tailor prevention strategies. We examined HRM use patterns among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (MA-PDs) vs. stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs) across geographic areas over time. This cross-sectional study used a 5% national Medicare sample (2011–2013). Among beneficiaries aged ≥65 who were continuously enrolled in MA-PDs or PDPs (~1.3 million each year), we identified those with ≥2 prescriptions for the same HRM (e.g., amitriptyline) during the year based on the HRM list provided by CMS and Pharmacy Quality Alliance. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted annual HRM use rates across 306 Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care hospital referral regions (HRRs), adjusting for sociodemographic, health-status, and access-to-care factors. PDP beneficiaries (n=2,346,037) were more likely to be older (75.8±7.8 vs.74.8±7.3 years), female (65% vs. 61%), white (85% vs. 82%), and have low-income-subsidy/dual-eligibility status (28% vs. 17%) compared to MA-PD beneficiaries (n=1,455,553) (p<0.001). HRM use significantly decreased over time among MA-PD beneficiaries (13.1% to 8.4%, p<0.0001) and PDP beneficiaries (16.2% to 12.2%, p<0.0001). In 2013, the ratios of 75th-to-25th percentile HRM use rates across HRRs were 1.42 (MA-PDs) and 1.31 (PDPs). HRRs with the highest HRM use rates were: Casper, WY (21.8%), Waco, TX (16.1%), Tuscaloosa, AL (15.8%), Lubbock, TX (15.7%), and Redding, CA (15.5%) (MA-PDs); and Lawton, OK (19.0%), Tuscaloosa, AL (18.6%), Slidell, LA (18.4%), Oklahoma City, OK (18.1%), and Alexandria, LA (18.1%) (PDPs). Geographic variation in HRM use exists among older adults in Medicare, regardless of prescription drug plans. Areas with high HRM rates may benefit from targeted interventions (e.g., medication therapy management monitoring or alternative medication substitutions) to prevent potential adverse consequences.

Do comprehensive medication review completion rates predict medication use and management quality?

Little is known about how Medicare Part D Comprehensive Medication Review (CMR) affects quality of medication use and management. In this study, changes of plan level CMR completion rates over time were examined and their associations with medication use and management related (MUMR) quality measures. Using Medicare Part D plan Star Rating and contract information data, a longitudinal data set was developed with CMR completion rate and 17 MUMR measures. T-tests and one-way Analysis of Variance were used to examine the variation of CMR rates between contracts and over time, respectively, as well as the regression adjusted associations using fixed-effects and ordinary least squares models, verified by Generalized Estimating Equations. CMR completion rates increased substantially from contract year 2013-2016, with a larger increase among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans than stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans. Prior year's CMR completion rates had marginally positive effects on 4 of the 17 MUMR measures: medication adherence with statin drugs, continuous beta blocker treatment, and pharmacotherapy management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation (systemic corticosteroid or bronchodilator). Increasing CMR completion also was associated with increased chronic use of atypical antipsychotics by elderly beneficiaries in nursing homes, an unintended outcome and a reflection of poor quality of care. CMR completion rates in the same year had even more limited associations with other MUMR measures. At plan level, CMR completion rates had limited and inconsistent association with other MUMR measures. Although our research used an observational study design, the associations observed have policy implications to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) Star Ratings program and quality bonus payments, as well as implications for plans' quality improvement.

Clinical and medication use characteristics of national cohort of elderly dementia patients

Little is known about how Medicare Part D Comprehensive Medication Review (CMR) affects quality of medication use and management. In this study, changes of plan level CMR completion rates over time were examined and their associations with medication use and management related (MUMR) quality measures.Using Medicare Part D plan Star Rating and contract information data, a longitudinal data set was developed with CMR completion rate and 17 MUMR measures. T-tests and one-way Analysis of Variance were used to examine the variation of CMR rates between contracts and over time, respectively, as well as the regression adjusted associations using fixed-effects and ordinary least squares models, verified by Generalized Estimating Equations.CMR completion rates increased substantially from contract year 2013–2016, with a larger increase among Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plans than stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans. Prior year's CMR completion rates had marginally positive effects on 4 of the 17 MUMR measures: medication adherence with statin drugs, continuous beta blocker treatment, and pharmacotherapy management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation (systemic corticosteroid or bronchodilator). Increasing CMR completion also was associated with increased chronic use of atypical antipsychotics by elderly beneficiaries in nursing homes, an unintended outcome and a reflection of poor quality of care. CMR completion rates in the same year had even more limited associations with other MUMR measures.At plan level, CMR completion rates had limited and inconsistent association with other MUMR measures. Although our research used an observational study design, the associations observed have policy implications to the Center for Medicare & Medicaid (CMS) Star Ratings program and quality bonus payments, as well as implications for plans' quality improvement.

Racial-Ethnic Disparities in Uptake of New Hepatitis C Drugs in Medicare.

Chronic hepatitis C is an important public health concern. Recently launched drugs to treat hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are effective but costly. Uptake of innovative and expensive prescription drugs may not be even across patient groups. We examined racial-ethnic disparities in uptake of new HCV drugs in the first year of their use (year 2014) in Medicare. The study population was Medicare beneficiaries who had chronic hepatitis C in 2013 or 2014 and who were continuously enrolled in Part D stand-alone Prescription Drug Plans in 2014. We examined trends in monthly uptake of new HCV drugs and adjusted annual uptake rates by race. We used logistic regressions to obtain adjusted odds ratios and adjusted differences in annual uptake rates. Monthly uptake of new HCV drugs was lower among Black Medicare patients than Whites or Hispanics in 2014. The racial gap in monthly uptake became narrower toward the end of the year. Adjusted odds of using new HCV drugs were 11% lower for Blacks with cirrhosis than Whites (odds ratio (OR)=0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-0.95), and 16% lower for Blacks with HCV/HIV coinfection than Whites (OR=0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92). Annual uptake rates were not significantly different for Whites and Hispanics. Black Medicare patients with cirrhosis or HCV/HIV coinfection had lower uptake rates than Whites in 2014. As utilization of new HCV drugs increases, continuing efforts will be necessary to ensure equal delivery of the drugs.