Drug benefit changes under Medicare Advantage Part D: heterogeneous effects on pharmaceutical use and expenditures

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes

BACKGROUND

Drug insurance schemes are systems that provide access to medicines on a prepaid basis and could potentially improve access to essential medicines and reduce out-of-pocket payments for vulnerable populations.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on drug use, drug expenditure, healthcare utilisation and healthcare outcomes of alternative policies for regulating drug insurance schemes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers between November 2014 and September 2020, including a citation search for included studies on 15 September 2021 using Web of Science. We screened reference lists of all the relevant reports that we retrieved and reports from the Background section. Authors of relevant papers, relevant organisations, and discussion lists were contacted to identify additional studies, including unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time-series studies (including controlled ITS [CITS] and repeated measures [RM] studies), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and reference lists of relevant reports, retrieved the full text of potentially relevant references and independently applied the inclusion criteria to those studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and when necessary by including a third review author. We excluded studies of the following pharmaceutical policies covered in other Cochrane Reviews: those that determined how decisions were made about which conditions or drugs were covered; those that placed restrictions on reimbursement for drugs that were covered; and those that regulated out-of-pocket payments for drugs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study, with disagreements being resolved by consensus. We used the criteria suggested by  Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC)  to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials and controlled before-after studies, we planned to report relative effects. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For interrupted time series and controlled interrupted time-series studies, we computed changes along two dimensions: change in level; and change in slope. We undertook a structured synthesis following the EPOC guidance on this topic, describing the range of effects found in the studies for each category of outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 58 studies that met the inclusion criteria (25 interrupted time-series studies and 33 controlled before-after studies). Most of the studies (54) assessed a single policy implemented in the United States (US) healthcare system: Medicare Part D. The other four assessed other drug insurance schemes from Canada and the US, but only one of them provided analysable data for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The introduction of drug insurance schemes may increase prescription drug use (low-certainty evidence). On the other hand, Medicare Part D may decrease drug expenditure measured as both out-of-pocket spending and total drug spending (low-certainty evidence). Regarding healthcare utilisation, drug insurance policies (such as Medicare Part D) may lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department. However, it is uncertain whether this type of policy increases or decreases hospital admissions or outpatient visits by beneficiaries of the scheme because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Likewise, it is uncertain if the policy increases or reduces health outcomes such as mortality because the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The introduction of drug insurance schemes such as Medicare Part D in the US health system may increase prescription drug use and may decrease out-of-pocket payments by the beneficiaries of the scheme and total drug expenditures. It may also lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department by the beneficiaries of the policy. Its effects on other healthcare utilisation outcomes and on health outcomes are uncertain because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The applicability of this evidence to settings outside US healthcare is limited.

Medicare Part D's Effects on Drug Utilization and Out-of-Pocket Costs: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To update a past systematic review on whether Medicare Part D changed drug utilization and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs overall and within subpopulations, and to identify evidence gaps.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

Published and gray literature from 2010 to 2015 meeting prespecified screening criteria, including having a comparison group, and utilization or OOP cost outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a systematic literature review with a quality assessment.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

For each study, we extracted information on study design, data sources, analytic methods, outcomes, and limitations. Because outcome measures vary across studies, we did a qualitative synthesis rather than meta-analysis.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Sixty-five studies met screening criteria. Overall, Medicare Part D enrollees have increased drug utilization and decreased OOP costs, but coverage gaps limit the program's impact. Beneficiaries whose insurance becomes more generous after enrollment had disproportionately increased drug utilization and decreased OOP costs. Outcomes among dual-eligibles were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence on how Medicare Part D and the donut hole coverage gap affect utilization and OOP costs, but weak evidence on how effects vary among dual-eligibles or across diseases. Findings suggest that the Affordable Care Act's provisions to expand coverage and reduce the donut hole should improve patient outcomes.

Medicare part D research and policy highlights, 2012: impact and insights

BACKGROUND

In the 6 years since the implementation of Medicare Part D in the United States, the program has been reported to improve quality, offer better beneficiary protections, and lower drug costs.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to highlight the latest key peer-reviewed research findings on Medicare Part D and major public policy initiatives for Part D for 2012.

METHODS

PubMed was searched for studies on Medicare Part D published in 2011 in biomedical/scientific, peer-reviewed, English-language journals. For the policy update, sources included the Federal Register, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual, the 2012 Final Call Letter, and guidance from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

RESULTS

Medicare Part D has been associated with increased medication utilization, reduced out-of-pocket expenditures, and an overall decrease in cost-related non-adherence and nonpersistence. Its impact on reduction in non-drug utilization of health services has been more apparent after the transition year in 2006 and among subsets of Medicare beneficiaries. Recent policy changes promise to make Part D more user-friendly, simplify choice, and offer greater protection to beneficiaries. The coverage gap will phase out by 2020. Both the quality rating system for prescription drug plans and medication therapy management programs were enhanced.

CONCLUSIONS

Although Part D was designed to improve drug benefits, improvements may be needed in plan selection and simplification, quality assessment (especially with regard to long-term impact and health outcomes), evidence-based improvements in medication therapy management, and disparities among priority subpopulations. Medicare Parts A, B, and D could be coordinated to offset costs by increasing medication expenses and decreasing expenses for nonprescription medical services, thereby improving the overall cost-effectiveness of the Medicare program.