Article

Disparity implications of Medicare eligibility criteria for medication therapy management services.

Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Tennessee College of Pharmacy, 847 Monroe Avenue, Room 205R, Memphis, TN 38163, USA.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 08/2010; 45(4):1061-82. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2010.01118.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine whether there would be racial and ethnic disparities in meeting eligibility criteria for medication therapy management (MTM) services implemented in 2006 for Medicare beneficiaries.
Secondary data analyses of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2004-2005).
Logistic regression and recycled predictions were used to test the disparities in meeting eligibility criteria across racial and ethnic groups. The eligibility thresholds used by health plans in 2006 and new thresholds recommended for 2010 were examined. Racial and ethnic disparities were examined by comparing non-Hispanic blacks (blacks) with non-Hispanic whites (whites) and comparing Hispanics with whites, respectively. Disparities were also examined among individuals with severe health problems.
According to 2006 thresholds, the adjusted odds ratios for meeting eligibility criteria for blacks and Hispanics to whites were 0.36-0.60 (p<.05) and 0.13-0.46 (p<.05), respectively. Blacks and Hispanics would be 21-34 and 32-38 percent, respectively, less likely to be eligible than whites according to recycled predictions. Similar patterns were found using the 2010 eligibility thresholds and among individuals with severe health problems.
There would be racial and ethnic disparities in meeting MTM eligibility criteria. Future research is warranted to confirm the findings using data after MTM implementation.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
136 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The proportion of patients with diabetes and hypertension receiving angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACE/ARB), is one of the quality measures for medication management employed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to rate Medicare Part D plans. The objectives of this study were to determine the rate and predictors of receiving ACE/ARB in physician office and outpatient visits made by Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and hypertension. The study population was Medicare beneficiaries with diabetes and hypertension from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Outpatient Department, from 2007 to 2009. Predictors of receiving ACE/ARB were determined using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Of the 6,311 Medicare outpatient and physician office visits with hypertension and diabetes, 40.70% patient visits were associated with receiving ACE/ARB. Bivariate analysis found that higher proportions of ACE/ARB were received during visits made to primary care physicians compared to visits to non-primary care physicians (48.39% vs. 32.56%; p<0.05). Adjusted multivariate analyses indicated that ACE/ARB were more likely to be received during visits to primary care physicians than visits to non-primary care physicians (odds ratio [OR]: 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.59-2.43), and ACE/ARB were more likely to be received during visits by patients residing in zip codes with median household income within Quartile 2 ($32,794-$40,626), compared to visits by patients residing in zip codes with median household income within Quartile 1 (< $32,793, OR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.13-1.87). Fewer than half of the patient visits were associated with receiving ACE/ARB. Promoting evidence-based medicine and increasing access to primary care may have the potential to increase the rates of receiving ACE/ARB in this population.
    03/2014; 5(1):67-74. DOI:10.1111/jphs.12036
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Determine whether the implementation of the Medicare Part D 2006 was associated with changes in differential racial and ethnic disparity patterns between the individuals ineligible for medication therapy management (MTM) services and MTM-eligible individuals. The urgency for modifying MTM eligibility criteria would be increased if the reduction of disparity not seen. Methods: Data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey were analyzed. A difference-in-differences analyses, difference-in-differences-in-differences-in-differences (DDDD) model, was used to examine changes in difference in disparities between the MTM-ineligible and MTM-eligible individuals from 2004-2005 to 2007-2008 in relation to the changes from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005. Disparities were examined in health outcomes, health services utilizations/costs, and medication utilization. Both main and sensitivity analyses were conducted by various regression models. Findings: The main analysis found no significant DDDD values. For racial disparities, according to some sensitivity analyses, Part D implementation was associated with a reduction in greater racial disparities among the MTM-ineligible and MTM-eligible individuals in activities of daily living (DDDD=1.13; P=0.03 for one analysis) and instrumental activities of daily living (DDDD=0.95; P=0.03 for one analysis). For ethnic disparities, Part D implementation was associated with reduction in any greater disparities among the MTM-ineligible than MTM-eligible individuals in costs of physician visits (DDDD=-4613.71; P=0.04 for one analysis) and high risk medication utilization (DDDD=-0.10; P=0.03 for one analysis). Conclusions: Part D implementation is not consistently associated with reductions in the disparity implications of the Medicare MTM eligibility criteria. The MTM eligibility criteria need to be modified in order to eliminate their disparity implications.
    142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition 2014; 11/2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previous studies have found that racial and ethnic minorities would be less likely to meet the Medicare eligibility criteria for medication therapy management (MTM) services than their non-Hispanic White counterparts. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether racial and ethnic disparities in health status, health services utilization and costs, and medication utilization patterns among MTM-ineligible individuals differed from MTM-eligible individuals. METHODS: This study analyzed Medicare beneficiaries in 2004-2005 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. Various multivariate regressions were employed depending on the nature of dependent variables. Interaction terms between the dummy variables for Blacks (and Hispanics) and MTM eligibility were included to test whether disparity patterns varied between MTM-ineligible and MTM-eligible individuals. Main and sensitivity analyses were conducted for MTM eligibility thresholds for 2006 and 2010. RESULTS: Based on the main analysis for 2006 MTM eligibility criteria, the proportions for self-reported good health status for Whites and Blacks were 82.82% vs. 70.75%, respectively (difference = 12.07%; P < 0.001), among MTM-ineligible population; and 56.98% vs. 52.14%, respectively (difference = 4.84%; P = 0.31), among MTM-eligible population. The difference between these differences was 7.23% (P < 0.001). In the adjusted logistic regression, the interaction effect for Blacks and MTM eligibility had an OR of 1.57 (95% Confidence Interval, or CI = 0.98-2.52) on multiplicative term and difference in odds of 2.38 (95% CI = 1.54-3.22) on additive term. Analyses for disparities between Whites and Hispanics found similar disparity patterns. All analyses for 2006 and 2010 eligibility criteria generally reported similar patterns. Analyses of other measures did not find greater racial or ethnic disparities among the MTM-ineligible than MTM-eligible individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in MTM eligibility may aggravate existing racial and ethnic disparities in health outcomes. However, disparities in MTM eligibility may not aggravate existing disparities in health services utilization and costs and medication utilization patterns. Future studies should examine the effects of Medicare Part D on these disparities.
    Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 06/2013; 10(1). DOI:10.1016/j.sapharm.2013.03.007 · 2.35 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
20 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014