Physician patient sharing relationships within insurance plan networks

OBJECTIVE

To quantify shared patient relationships between primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists and oncologists and the degree to which those relationships were captured within insurance networks.

DATA SOURCES

Secondary analysis of Vericred data on physician networks, CareSet data on physicians' shared Medicare patients, and insurance plan attributes from Health Insurance Compare. Data validation exercises used data from Physician Compare and IQVIA.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of the PCP-to-specialist in-network shared patient percentage (primary outcome). We also categorized networks by insurance market segment (Medicare Advantage [MA], Medicaid managed care, small-group or individually purchased), insurance plan type, and network breadth.

DATA EXTRACTION

We analyzed data on 219,982 PCPs, 29,400 cardiologists, and 22,745 oncologists who, in 2021, accepted MA (n = 941 networks), Medicaid managed care (n = 293), and individually-purchased (n = 332) and small-group (n = 501) plans.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Networks captured, on average, 64.6% of PCP-cardiology shared patient ties, and 61.8% of PCP-oncologist ties. Less than half of in-network ties (44.5% and 38.9%, respectively) were among physicians with a common organizational affiliation. After adjustment for network breadth, we found no evidence of differences in the shared patient percentage across insurance market segments or networks of different types (p-value >0.05 for all comparisons). An exception was among national versus local and regional networks, where we found that national plans captured fewer shared patient ties, particularly among the narrowest networks (58.4% for national networksvs. 64.7% for local and regional networks for PCP-cardiology).

CONCLUSIONS

Given recent trends toward narrower networks, our findings underscore the importance of incorporating additional and nuanced measures of network composition to aid plan selection (for patients) and to guide regulatory oversight.

Geographic Variation in Hospital-Based Physician Participation in Insurance Networks

This cross-sectional study documents 2021 insurance network participation rates among hospital-based physicians nationally and by state.

Financial Burden of Drugs Prescribed for Cancer-Associated Symptoms

PURPOSE

The financial toxicity of anticancer drugs is well-documented, but little is known about the costs of drugs used to manage cancer-associated symptoms.

METHODS

We reviewed relevant guidelines and compiled drugs used to manage seven cancer-associated symptoms (anorexia and cachexia, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, constipation, diarrhea, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, cancer-associated fatigue, and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting). Using GoodRx website, we identified the retail price (cash price at retail pharmacies) and lowest price (discounted, best-case scenario of out-of-pocket costs) for patients without insurance for each drug or formulation for a typical fill. We describe lowest prices here.

RESULTS

For anorexia and cachexia, costs ranged from $5 US dollars (USD; generic olanzapine or mirtazapine tablets) to $1,156 USD (brand-name dronabinol solution) and varied widely by formulation of the same drug or dosage: for olanzapine 5 mg, $5 USD (generic tablet) to $239 USD (brand-name orally disintegrating tablet). For chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, costs of duloxetine varied from $12 USD (generic) to $529 USD (brand-name). For constipation, the cost of sennosides or polyethylene glycol was <$15 USD, whereas newer agents such as methylnaltrexone were expensive ($1,001 USD). For diarrhea, the cost of generic loperamide or diphenoxylate-atropine tablets was <$15 USD. For exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, only brand-name formulations were available, range of cost, $1,072 USD-$1,514 USD. For cancer-associated fatigue, the cost of generic dexamethasone or dexmethylphenidate was <$15 USD, whereas brand-name modafinil was more costly ($1,284 USD). For a 4-drug nausea and vomiting prophylaxis regimen, costs ranged from $181 USD to $1,430 USD.

CONCLUSION

We highlight the high costs of many symptom control drugs and the wide variation in the costs of these drugs. These findings can guide patient-clinician discussions about cost-effectively managing symptoms, while promoting the use of less expensive formulations when possible.

Limited benefit and high financial burden of drugs used to manage cancer-associated anorexia/cachexia syndrome (CACS)

55

Background: To date, drugs used for CACS have limited efficacy and may have unwanted side effects. Despite this, clinicians commonly prescribe certain drugs for CACS, adding financial burden to patients through out-of-pocket costs near or at the end of life. We sought to describe the range of costs of the multiple drugs commonly used to manage CACS. Methods: We reviewed oncology, nutrition, and supportive care guidelines (ASCO, ESMO, ESPEN, MASCC) and compiled a list of drugs recommended for CACS. We also included drugs commonly used off-label in clinical practice as identified by study authors. Using GoodRx.com, we extracted available formulations (e.g., tablet [tab] vs capsule [cap] vs oral disintegrating tablet [ODT] vs solution [sol]), and brand name vs generic products for each drug. We identified the average retail price, and the lowest price with coupons, for each formulation using the most commonly used dosage for a 2-week period (typical fill). The average retail price is the cash price for consumers without prescription drug coverage. The lowest price represents a discounted, ‘’best case’’ scenario of out-of-pocket costs for patients without prescription drug coverage. We collected data using the zip code 10065 in May 2021 to describe the range of costs of these drug formulations. Results: We included 7 drugs available in 20 formulations (Table). For a 2-week fill, the least expensive options included generic olanzapine 5 mg tab (once daily) and generic mirtazapine 15 mg tab (once daily), costing $4.50 per fill. Brand-name solutions were costly, ranging from $605.50 (megestrol acetate, Megace ES) to $1,156.30 (dronabinol, Syndros). Costs between formulations of the same drug/dosage varied widely: for olanzapine 5 mg, the lowest price varied from $4.50 [generic, tab] to $238.40 [Zyprexa zydis, brand-name, ODT]. Conclusions: We found that the costs of drugs used for CACS are highly variable, ranging from < $5 to > $1000 per fill. Overall there is limited data supporting use of drugs for managing CACS. Thus, our findings can help guide patient-clinician discussions about the risk/benefit ratio of a prescription for managing CACS, while highlighting the importance of seeking less expensive formulations when possible.[Table: see text]

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

OBJECTIVES

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.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive study of Medicare Prescription Drug Formulary Files.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Breadth and Exclusivity of Hospital and Physician Networks in US Insurance Markets

Importance

Little is known about the breadth of health care networks or the degree to which different insurers' networks overlap.

Objective

To quantify network breadth and exclusivity (ie, overlap) among primary care physician (PCP), cardiology, and general acute care hospital networks for employer-based (large group and small group), individually purchased (marketplace), Medicare Advantage (MA), and Medicaid managed care (MMC) plans.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included 1192 networks from Vericred. The analytic unit was the network-zip code-clinician type-market, which captured attributes of networks from the perspective of a hypothetical patient seeking access to in-network clinicians or hospitals within a 60-minute drive.

Exposures

Enrollment in a private insurance plan.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Percentage of in-network physicians and/or hospitals within a 60-minute drive from a hypothetical patient in a given zip code (breadth). Number of physicians and/or hospitals within each network that overlapped with other insurers' networks, expressed as a percentage of the total possible number of shared connections (exclusivity). Descriptive statistics (mean, quantiles) were produced overall and by network breadth category, as follows: extra-small (<10%), small (10%-25%), medium (25%-40%), large (40%-60%), and extra-large (>60%). Networks were analyzed by insurance type, state, and insurance, physician, and/or hospital market concentration level, as measured by the Hirschman-Herfindahl index.

Results

Across all US zip code-network observations, 415 549 of 511 143 large-group PCP networks (81%) were large or extra-large compared with 138 485 of 202 702 MA (68%), 191 918 of 318 082 small-group (60%), 60 425 of 149 841 marketplace (40%), and 21 781 of 66 370 MMC (40%) networks. Large-group employer networks had broader coverage than all other network plans (mean [SD] PCP breadth: large-group employer-based plans, 57.3% [20.1]; small-group employer-based plans, 45.7% [21.4]; marketplace, 36,4% [21.2]; MMC, 32.3% [19.3]; MA, 47.4% [18.3]). MMC networks were the least exclusive (a mean [SD] overlap of 61.3% [10.5] for PCPs, 66.5% [9.8] for cardiology, and 60.2% [12.3] for hospitals). Networks were narrowest (mean [SD] breadth 42.4% [16.9]) and most exclusive (mean [SD] overlap 47.7% [23.0]) in California and broadest (79.9% [16.6]) and least exclusive (71.1% [14.6]) in Nebraska. Rising levels of insurer and market concentration were associated with broader and less exclusive networks. Markets with concentrated primary care and insurance markets had the broadest (median [interquartile range {IQR}], 75.0% [60.0%-83.1%]) and least exclusive (median [IQR], 63.7% [52.4%-73.7%]) primary care networks among large-group commercial plans, while markets with least concentration had the narrowest (median [IQR], 54.6% [46.8%-67.6%]) and most exclusive (median [IQR], 49.4% [41.9%-56.9%]) networks.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, narrower health care networks had a relatively large degree of overlap with other networks in the same geographic area, while broader networks were associated with physician, hospital, and insurance market concentration. These results suggest that many patients could switch to a lower-cost, narrow network plan without losing in-network access to their PCP, although future research is needed to assess the implications for care quality and clinical integration across in-network health care professionals and facilities in narrow network plans.

Medicare Part D Plans Rarely Cover Brand-Name Drugs When Generics Are Available

Recent press reports and other evidence suggest that Medicare Part D plans may be encouraging the use of brand-name drugs instead of generics. However, the scope of such practices is unclear. We examined Medicare Part D formulary coverage and tier placement of matched pairs of brand-name drugs and generics to quantify how often preferred formulary placement of brand-name drugs is occurring within and across Part D plans and to assess the cost implications for Medicare and its beneficiaries. We found that in 2019, 84 percent of 4,176,772 Part D plan-product combinations had generic-only coverage (that is, the brand-name counterparts were not covered). Another 15 percent covered both the brand-name and generic versions of a product. For the small number of products whose brand-name versions were covered preferentially to their generic equivalents, beneficiary and Medicare prices were generally low for both products. Overall, we found that most Part D plan formularies are designed to encourage the use of generics rather than their brand-name counterparts. Policy makers should continue to monitor Part D formulary coverage patterns to ensure consistent and generous coverage for generic drugs, given their important role in reducing prescription drug spending.

Public and private providers' quality of care for tuberculosis patients in Kampala, Uganda

SETTING

The role of the private sector in tuberculosis treatment in developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa is largely unknown. In recent years, many fee-for-service clinics have opened up in Kampala, Uganda. Little is known about the tuberculosis caseload seen in private clinics or the standard of care provided to the patients.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the appropriateness of tuberculosis care in private and public clinics, and the extent of the tuberculosis burden handled in the private sector.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey in private and public clinics treating tuberculosis patients in Kampala, Uganda, during June to August 1999.

MEASUREMENTS

Clinics were evaluated for appropriateness of care. This was defined as provision of proper diagnosis (sputum smear microscopy as the primary means of diagnosis), treatment (short-course chemotherapy, with or without directly observed therapy), outcome evaluation (smear microscopy at 6 or 7 months) and case notification in accordance with the Uganda National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Programme.

RESULTS

A total of 114 clinics (104 private, 10 public) were surveyed. Forty-one per cent of the private clinics saw three or more new tuberculosis patients each month. None of the public or private clinics met all standards for appropriate tuberculosis care. Only 24% of all clinics adhered to WHO-recommended treatment guidelines. Public clinics, younger practitioners and practitioners with advanced degrees were most likely to provide appropriate care for tuberculosis.

CONCLUSION

The private sector cares for many tuberculosis cases in Kampala; however, a new programme that offers continuing medical education is needed to improve tuberculosis care and to increase awareness of national guidelines for tuberculosis care.