Adverse Selection In The Medicare Prescription Drug Program

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Research, Development, and Information in Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 11/2009; 28(6):1826-37. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.28.6.1826
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The Medicare Part D drug benefit created choices for beneficiaries among many prescription drug plans with varying levels of coverage. As a result, Medicare enrollees with high prescription drug costs have strong incentives to enroll in Part D, especially in plans with more comprehensive coverage. To measure this potential problem of "adverse selection," which could threaten plans' finances, we compared baseline characteristics among groups of beneficiaries with various drug coverage arrangements in 2006. We found some significant differences. For example, enrollees in stand-alone prescription drug plans, especially in plans offering benefits in the coverage gap, or "doughnut hole," had higher baseline drug costs and worse health than enrollees in Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans. Although risk-adjusted payments and other measures have been put in place to account for selection, these patterns could adversely affect future Medicare costs and should be watched carefully.


Available from: Melissa A Evans, Dec 15, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of guideline-recommended prescription medications for diabetes among Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs) with Medicare Advantage prescription drug plans (MAPDs) in the presence of potential selection bias. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Chronic Condition Data Warehouse (2006, 2007). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional comparison of drug use and proportion of days covered (PDC) for oral-antidiabetics, ACE-inhibitors/ARBs, and antihyperlipidemics among PDP and MAPD enrollees with diabetes. We estimated "naïve" regression models assuming exogenous plan choice and two-stage residual inclusion (2SRI) models to study endogeneity in choice of Part D plan type. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We identified 111,290 diabetics based on ICD-9 codes in Medicare claims from a random 5 percent sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2005 excluding dual eligibles. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The naïve regression models indicated lower probability of drug use for oral-antidiabetics (-4 percent; p < .001) and ACE-inhibitors/ARBS (-2 percent; p = .004) among PDP enrollees, but their PDC was higher (3-5 percent) for all drug classes (p < .001). 2SRI models produced no significant differences in any-use equations, but significantly higher PDC values for PDP enrollees for oral-antidiabetics and ACE-inhibitors/ARBs. CONCLUSIONS: We found similar overall use of recommended drugs in diabetes treatment and no consistent evidence of favorable or adverse selection into PDPs and MAPDs.
    Health Services Research 12/2012; 48(3). DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.12016 · 2.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) seek to improve the generalizability and increase the statistical power of traditional explanatory trials. They are a major tenet of comparative effectiveness research. While a powerful study design, PCTs have been limited by high cost, modest efficiency, and limited ability to fill relevant evidence gaps. Based on an American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) supported meeting of national stakeholders, we propose several innovations and future research that could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of such studies focused in the U.S. Innovations discussed include optimizing the use of community based practices through partnership with Practice Based Research Networks (PBRNs), using information technology to simplify PCT subject recruitment, consent and randomization processes, and utilizing linkages to large administrative databases, such as Medicare, as a mechanism to capture outcomes and other important PCT variables with lower subject and research team burden. Testing and adaptation of such innovations to PCT are anticipated to improve the public health value of these increasingly important studies.
    Contemporary clinical trials 07/2012; 33(6):1211-6. DOI:10.1016/j.cct.2012.07.002 · 1.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Medicare Part D, which provides prescription drug coverage to Medicare beneficiaries, is delivered through either Medicare Advantage prescription drug (MA-PD) plans or stand-alone prescription drug plans (PDPs). MA-PD plans cover both drug therapy and other medical services, whereas PDPs provide prescription drug coverage only. Because of the potential substitutability between prescription drugs and other medical services, MA-PD plans may make greater efforts to improve enrollees' adherence to recommended medications than PDPs. Prescription drug benefits are more generous in MA-PD plans than in PDPs. To assess statin adherence, comparing Medicare beneficiaries in MA-PD plans with those in PDPs. We used records from the Chronic Condition Warehouse 2007 Prescription Drug Event (PDE) file, associated Plan Characteristics files, and the Beneficiary Summary File (BSF) for a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries. The study sample comprised Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older in 2006 who filled at least 1 prescription for a statin during 2007, excluding beneficiaries with low-income subsidy or end-stage renal disease and those without both Medicare Part A and Part B enrollment in 2007. Medication adherence was measured by medication possession ratio (MPR), defined as the sum of days supply for all statin prescriptions filled in 2007 minus the days supply that would have carried over into 2008 from the final 2007 prescription filled, divided by the total number of days from the fill date of the first statin prescription to December 31, 2007. A binary indicator of good adherence was defined as MPR exceeding 80%. Propensity-score matching was used to reduce differences in observed characteristics of enrollees in MA-PD plans and PDPs. The propensity score was based on sociodemographic characteristics and health risk measures, including Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) scores. In the unmatched sample, the mean MPR was 70.57% for MA-PD enrollees versus 70.54% for PDP enrollees (P = 0.780), and the proportion of enrollees with good adherence was 46.7% for MA-PD plans versus 46.9% for PDPs (P = 0.262). In the matched sample, statin adherence was slightly better among MA-PD enrollees than PDP enrollees. Mean MPRs were 70.80% and 69.44%, and the percentages of enrollees with good adherence were 47.0% and 45.3% in MA-PD plans and PDPs, respectively (both P  less than  0.001). During an early year of the Part D program, MA-PD enrollees had slightly better adherence to statin therapy than PDP enrollees. While the difference was statistically significant, it was very small and unlikely to lead to clinically meaningful consequences. Less than one-half of MA-PD and PDP enrollees had good adherence in statin use, suggesting room for improvement in both types of Part D plans. Continuing evaluations of adherence in diverse therapy classes are needed for Medicare Part D beneficiaries.
    Journal of managed care pharmacy: JMCP 03/2012; 18(2):106-15. · 2.68 Impact Factor