Search

The tax penalty for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is to be eliminated starting in 2019. We investigated the potential impact of this change on enrollees' decisions to purchase insurance and on individual-market premiums. In a survey of enrollees in the individual market in California in 2017, 19 percent reported that they would not have purchased insurance had there been no penalty. We estimated that premiums would increase by 4-7 percent if these enrollees were not in the risk pool. The percentages of enrollees who would forgo insurance were higher among those vdth lower income and education, Hispanics, and those who had been uninsured in the prior year, relative to the comparison groups. Compared to older enrollees and those with two or more chronic conditions, respectively, younger enrollees and those with no chronic conditions were also more likely to say that they would not have purchased insurance. Eliminating the mandate penalty alone is unlikely to destabilize the California individual market but could erode coverage gains, especially among groups whose members have historically been less likely to be insured. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective There is limited information on the protective value of Medicare Part D low-income subsidies ( LIS). We compared responses to drug costs for LIS recipients with near-poor (≤200 percent of the Federal Poverty Level) and higher income beneficiaries without the LIS. Data Sources/Study Setting Medicare Advantage beneficiaries in 2008. Study Design We examined three drug cost responses using multivariate logistic regression: cost-reducing behaviors (e.g., switching to generics), nonadherence (e.g., not refilling prescriptions), and financial stress (e.g., going without necessities). Data Collection Telephone interviews in a stratified random sample ( N = 1,201, 70 percent response rate). Principal Findings After adjustment, a comparable percentage of unsubsidized near-poor (26 percent) and higher income beneficiaries reported cost-reducing behaviors (23 percent, p = .63); fewer LIS beneficiaries reported cost-reducing behaviors (15 percent, p = .019 vs near-poor). Unsubsidized near-poor beneficiaries were more likely to reduce adherence (8.2 percent) than higher income (3.5 percent, p = .049) and LIS beneficiaries (3.1 percent, p = .027). Near-poor beneficiaries also more frequently experienced financial stress due to drug costs (20 percent) than higher income beneficiaries (11 percent, p = .050) and LIS beneficiaries (11 percent, p = .015). Conclusions Low-income subsidies provide protection from drug cost-related nonadherence and financial stress. Beneficiaries just above the LIS income threshold are most at risk for these potentially adverse behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. To compare drug costs and adherence among Medicare beneficiaries with the standard Part D coverage gap versus supplemental gap coverage in 2006. Data Sources. Pharmacy data from Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans. Study Design. Parallel analyses comparing beneficiaries aged 65+ with diabetes in an integrated MAPD with a gap versus no gap ( n=28,780); and in a network-model MAPD with a gap versus generic-only coverage during the gap ( n=14,984). Principal Findings. Drug spending was 3 percent (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: 1–4 percent) and 4 percent (CI: 1–6 percent) lower among beneficiaries with a gap versus full or generic-only gap coverage, respectively. Out-of-pocket expenditures were 189 percent higher (CI: 185–193 percent) and adherence to three chronic drug classes was lower among those with a gap versus no gap (e.g., odds ratio=0.83, CI: 0.79–0.88, for oral diabetes drugs). Annual out-of-pocket spending was 14 percent higher (CI: 10–17 percent) for beneficiaries with a gap versus generic-only gap coverage, but levels of adherence were similar. Conclusions. Among Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes, having the Part D coverage gap resulted in lower total drug costs, but higher out-of-pocket spending and worse adherence compared with having no gap. Having generic-only coverage during the gap appeared to confer limited benefits compared with having no gap coverage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High deductible—based health insurance plans require consumers to pay for care until reaching the deductible amount. However, information is limited on how well consumers understand their benefits and how they respond to these costs. In telephone interviews, we found that consumers had limited knowledge about their deductibles yet frequently reported changing their care-seeking behavior because of the cost. Poor knowledge limited the effects of the deductible design, with some consumers avoiding care for services that were exempt from the deductible. Consumers need more information and decision support to understand their benefits and to differentiate when care is necessary, discretionary, or unnecessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study to determine Medicare beneficiaries' knowledge of the benefits and cost responses of the Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug plan in the U.S. The study measured awareness of the coverage gap and cost-coping behaviors such as switching medications, non-adherence and the forgoing of basic needs by the elderly in the U.S. The design, setting and participants of the telephone interview study are defined. Research showed a 40% awareness of a coverage gap in the drug plan by those interviewed, while 30% reported engaging in one of the cost-coping behaviors measured.

Background: Patients face increasing insurance restrictions on prescription drugs, including generic-only coverage. There are no generic inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), which are a mainstay of asthma therapy, and patients pay the full price for these drugs under generic-only policies. We examined changes in ICS use following the introduction of generic-only coverage in a Medicare Advantage population from 2003-2004. Methods: Subjects were age 65+, with asthma, prior ICS use, and no chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (n = 1,802). In 2004, 74.0% switched from having a $30 brand-copayment plan to a generic-only coverage plan (restricted coverage); 26% had $15-25 brand copayments in 2003-2004 (unrestricted coverage). Using linear difference-in-difference models, we examined annual changes in ICS use (measured by days-of-supply dispensed). There was a lower-cost ICS available within the study setting and we also examined changes in drug choice (higher- vs. lower-cost ICS). In multivariable models we adjusted for socio-demographic, clinical, and asthma characteristics. Results: In 2003 subjects had an average of 188 days of ICS supply. Restricted compared with unrestricted coverage was associated with reductions in ICS use from 2003-2004 (-15.5 days-of-supply, 95% confidence interval (CI): -25.0 to -6.0). Among patients using higher-cost ICS drugs in 2003 (n = 662), more restricted versus unrestricted coverage subjects switched to the lower-cost ICS in 2004 (39.8% vs. 10.3%). Restricted coverage was not associated with decreased ICS use (2003-2004) among patients who switched to the lower-cost ICS (18.7 days-of-supply, CI: -27.5 to 65.0), but was among patients who did not switch (-38.6 days-of-supply, CI: -57.0 to -20.3). In addition, restricted coverage was associated with decreases in ICS use among patients with both higher- and lower-risk asthma (-15.0 days-of-supply, CI: - 41.4 to 11.44; and -15.6 days-of-supply, CI: -25.8 to -5.3, respectively). Conclusion: In this elderly population, patients reduced their already low ICS use in response to losing drug coverage. Switching to the lower-cost ICS mitigated reductions in use among patients who previously used higher-cost drugs. Additional work is needed to assess barriers to switching ICS drugs and the clinical effects of these drug use changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To study the impact of eliminating cost sharing for screening mammography on mammography rates in a large Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan which in 2010 eliminated cost sharing in anticipation of the Affordable Care Act mandate.Study Setting: Large MA health maintenance organization offering individual-subscriber MA insurance and employer-supplemented group MA insurance.Study Design: We investigated the impact on breast cancer screening of a policy that eliminated a $20 copayment for screening mammography in 2010 among 53,188 women continuously enrolled from 2007 to 2012 in an individual-subscriber MA plan, compared with 42,473 women with employer-supplemented group MA insurance in the same health maintenance organization who had full screening coverage during this period. We used differences-in-differences analysis to study the impact of cost-sharing elimination on mammography rates.Principal Findings: Annual screening rates declined over time for both groups, with similar trends pre-2010 and a slower decline after 2010 among women whose copayments were eliminated. Among women aged 65-74 years in the individual-subscriber MA plan, 44.9 percent received screening in 2009 compared with 40.9 percent in 2012, while 49.5 percent of women in the employer-supplemented MA plan received screening in 2009 compared with 44.1 percent in 2012, that is, a difference-in-difference effect of 1.4 percentage points less decline in screening among women experiencing the cost-sharing elimination. Effects were concentrated among women without recent screening. There were no differences by neighborhood socioeconomic status or race/ethnicity.Conclusions: Eliminating cost sharing for screening mammography was associated with modesty lower decline in screening rates among women with previously low screening adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about drug cost communications of Medicare Part D beneficiaries with chronic conditions such as diabetes. The purpose of this study is to assess Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes' levels of communication with physicians regarding prescription drug costs; the perceived importance of these communications; levels of prescription drug switching due to cost; and self-reported cost-related medication non-adherence. Methods: Data were obtained from a cross-sectional survey (58% response rate) of 1,458 Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes who entered the coverage gap in 2006; adjusted percentages of patients with communication issues were obtained from multivariate regression analyses adjusting for patient demographics and clinical characteristics. Results: Fewer than half of patients reported discussing the cost of medications with their physicians, while over 75% reported that such communications were important. Forty-eight percent reported their physician had switched to a less expensive medication due to costs. Minorities, females, and older adults had significantly lower levels of communication with their physicians regarding drug costs than white, male, and younger patients respectively. Patients with < $25 K annual household income were more likely than higher income patients to have talked about prescription drug costs with doctors, and to report cost-related non-adherence (27% vs. 17%, p < .001). Conclusions: Medicare Part D beneficiaries with diabetes who entered the coverage gap have low levels of communication with physicians about drug costs, despite the high perceived importance of such communication. Understanding patient and plan-level characteristics differences in communication and use of cost-cutting strategies can inform interventions to help patients manage prescription drug costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little information exists about the consequences of limits on prescription-drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries. Methods: We compared the clinical and economic outcomes in 2003 among 157,275 Medicare+Choice beneficiaries whose annual drug benefits were capped at $1,000 and 41,904 beneficiaries whose drug benefits were unlimited because of employer supplements. Results: After adjusting for individual characteristics, we found that subjects whose benefits were capped had pharmacy costs for drugs applicable to the cap that were lower by 31 percent than subjects whose benefits were not capped (95 percent confidence interval, 29 to 33 percent) but had total medical costs that were only 1 percent lower (95 percent confidence interval, −4 to 6 percent). Subjects whose benefits were capped had higher relative rates of visits to the emergency department (relative rate, 1.09 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.04 to 1.14]), nonelective hospitalizations (relative rate, 1.13 [1.05 to 1.21]), and death (relative rate, 1.22 [1.07 to 1.38]; difference, 0.68 per 100 person-years [0.30 to 1.07]). Among subjects who used drugs for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or diabetes in 2002, those whose benefits were capped were more likely to be nonadherent to long-term drug therapy in 2003; the respective odds ratios were 1.30 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.23 to 1.38), 1.27 (1.19 to 1.34), and 1.33 (1.18 to 1.48) for subjects using drugs for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes. In each subgroup, the physiological outcomes were worse for subjects whose drug benefits were capped than for those whose benefits were not capped; the odds ratios were 1.05 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.00 to 1.09), 1.13 (1.03 to 1.25), and 1.23 (1.03 to 1.46), respectively, for subjects with a systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more, a serum low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol level of 130 mg per deciliter or more, and a glycated hemoglobin level of 8 percent or more. Conclusions: A cap on drug benefits was associated with lower drug consumption and unfavorable clinical outcomes. In patients with chronic disease, the cap was associated with poorer adherence to drug therapy and poorer control of blood pressure, lipid levels, and glucose levels. The savings in drug costs from the cap were offset by increases in the costs of hospitalization and emergency department care. N Engl J Med 2006;354:2349-59. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]