Preferences for patient cost sharing among medicare beneficiaries after HMO plan withdrawals

OBJECTIVE: To assess Medicare beneficiaries' willingness to cost share in order to minimize disruptions in coverage from HMO plan withdrawals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of Medicare beneficiaries from February 1999 to March 1999. SETTING: Ten U.S. counties with the highest HMO plan withdrawal rates. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred one Medicare beneficiaries for response rate of 69%. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Percentage of respondents willing to accept more out-of-pocket costs in order to continue their Medicare HMO coverage. Most respondents (67%) were willing to pay more out-of-pocket costs so that their HMO could have continued Medicare coverage. Those who were white (P =.03), had higher incomes (P =.01), and returned to traditional fee-for-service Medicare (P =.004) were more likely than other respondents to accept increased patient cost sharing. Most beneficiaries preferred Medicare policies requiring HMOs to sign longer-term Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) contracts (72%) and to offer coverage to beneficiaries regardless of where they lived in a given state (87%). However, respondents' preferences for such policy options were not associated with the amount of cost sharing that respondents were willing to accept. CONCLUSIONS: Most Medicare beneficiaries are willing to accept increased patient cost sharing in order to reduce disruptions in their HMO coverage. Policies intended to reduce HMO plan withdrawals, such as requiring health plans to sign longer-term HCFA contracts, are supported by many Medicare beneficiaries, but these policy preferences were not related to willingness to cost share. In light of an apparent willingness to pay more out-of-pocket medical costs, Medicare beneficiaries in general may accept increased cost sharing in order to retain their HMO coverage.     

Impact of medicare part D on access to and cost sharing for specialty biologic medications for beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis

Objective

Many worry that the use of specialty tiering for biologic disease‐modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) by Medicare Part D plans imposes a heavy financial burden on beneficiaries with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To date, no one has examined the cost‐sharing structures for biologic DMARDs in Part D plans or the resulting cost burden for patients.

Methods

We followed 14,929 vulnerable, low‐income patients with RA who were enrolled in the Medicare Replacement Drug Demonstration (MRDD) in 2005. As the MRDD population transitioned into Part D in 2006, we examined correlates of Part D enrollment and compared the cost‐sharing provisions for biologic DMARDs in the Medicare Advantage and stand‐alone plans. We simulated the out‐of‐pocket costs of beneficiaries under 3 cost‐sharing scenarios.

Results

Eighty‐one percent of MRDD beneficiaries with RA enrolled in Part D. Enrollment predictors were female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.32–1.67), prior MRDD benefit use (OR 2.29, 95% CI 2.04–2.58), other self‐reported drug coverage (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.36–1.71), and receiving an MRDD subsidy (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.74–2.30). Compared with stand‐alone plans, Medicare Advantage plans had lower deductibles, lower premiums, and fewer prior authorization, step therapy, and quantity limit restrictions. However, ～75% of all plans used coinsurance as the preferred form of cost sharing. Out‐of‐pocket costs exceeded $4,000 annually in all cost‐sharing scenarios.

Conclusion

Most MRDD beneficiaries with RA enrolled in Part D. Although plans assume some costs for biologic DMARDs, the majority of costs are shifted to beneficiaries and to Medicare. Such cost shifting may place these medications out of the beneficiary's financial reach and expose Medicare to high financial liability.     

Socioeconomic status and outcome following acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients

BACKGROUND: Although the Medicare entitlement provides universal hospital care coverage for elderly Americans, disparities in care processes after acute myocardial infarction still exist. Whether these disparities account for increased mortality among elderly poor patients is not known. METHODS: To determine the association between socioeconomic status and acute myocardial infarction treatment, procedure use, and 30-day and 1-year mortality, we analyzed data from 132 130 elderly Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction between January 1994 and February 1996. Patients were categorized into 10 groups of increasing income using the median income of the ZIP code of residence. RESULTS: The highest-income beneficiaries received higher rates of evidence-based medical therapy and had lower adjusted 30-day and 1-year mortality rates compared with the middle-income beneficiaries (30-day relative risk, 0.89 [95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.94]; and 1-year relative risk, 0.92 [95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.97]). Conversely, the lowest-income beneficiaries received lower rates of evidence-based medical treatment and had higher adjusted 30-day and 1-year mortality rates relative to the middle-income beneficiaries (30-day relative risk, 1.09 [95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.13]; and 1-year relative risk, 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.10]). Coronary revascularization rates were similar among income groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the Medicare entitlement, there remain significant socioeconomic disparities in medical treatment and mortality among elderly patients following acute myocardial infarction. Income was independently associated with short- and long-term mortality. More research is required to determine the mechanisms contributing to adverse outcomes among poor elderly patients and to determine whether expansion of Medicare coverage will alleviate these disparities.     

Helping Medicare beneficiaries choose health insurance: the illness episode approach

Lacking objective, comprehensible information about health care coverage options, Medicare beneficiaries rarely understand the consequences of alternative purchasing decisions. We describe the Illness Episode Approach, a method providing information on Medicare itself, Medigap policies, and HMOs. The method presents calculations of seniors' out-of-pocket costs under different insurance options for 13 common illnesses.